The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-01-10
ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT.
The Publisher and Editor Of the . Ga
zette" Before the Supreme Court i'm
BancO-The Decision Reserved.

appeared before the Supreme Court II
banco in response to petition previous
ly granted calling upon them to SHOW
cause why they should not be com
mitted for contempt of Court. The
bench was occupied by their Honor
Chief Justice Judd, Mr.. Justice Nc
Gully, Mr.. Justice Preston and Mr.. Jus
tice Bickerton. Messrs. Ashford q Ash
ford, Hon. Paul Neumann and Mr.. w
A. Whiting appeared in support OF the
petition. Respondents were not repre-
scented by counsel.
Mr.. G.. w. Ashford, before entering
upon the case, referred to the circum-
stance OF his being the first to address
the newly constituted Court upon an
fluctuations to the recently exalted
Judges. It was perhaps an infelicitous
circumstance that the first matter to
come before the Court should be petit
ton charging two very reputable gentle
| men engaged in journalism with an in
fraction of the law of contempt. Counsel
then read the petition and the article
| complained of, headed "The Other Side
! of the Question" which was published
| in the Gazette" of December 28th.
Mr.. Atkinson then rose and said that
he desired to give an explanation as to
how it was the article was published.
He stated that on December 22d an
article appeared in the Bulletin" rela-
IL Fl,.,+ tr,
in the article complained of. On the
following day there was an article in the
"Herald" headed can Abuse" relating
to the same circumstances. In cOnse-
quence of these two articles they had
instructed their reporter to make in
quiries as to the case. He would read
the articles if their Honors desired it,
but perhaps it was not necessary to take
up the time of the Court. Mr.. Atkinson
then read the statement of the ''Bulle
tin," describing the circumstances of
the arrest of Mr.. Congdon. As he had
said, they instructed their reporter to
find out what facts he could about the
matter. The reporter applied to Messrs.
the information published in the Ca
zette' After the article was written a
proof was submitted to Messrs. Schaefer
& Co. They had partly been induced to
speak to that firm by the publication of
the article in the Herald" which ami
madverted upon anyone who interiered |
with people leaving the Kingdom.
That was the whole of their po-
sition. They certainly never intended |
any contempt of Court, and were
not aware that any had oc-
Cured. Before this rule was applied |
for he had met Mr.. Ashford, who had
told him that perhaps these proceedings
would be taken, and he (the speaker) |
then offered to publish anything in the
newspaper which would express Mr..
Ashford's side of the case, and said that
itdny wrong had been done he would be
only too happy to make it right. That,
he thought, was all that they had to say
in their defense.
Mr.. G. W. Ashford, in opening the ar
gument, expressly disclaimed any desire
for the inhiction of a severe penalty or,
in fact, any penalty. The question was
a comparatively new one in this Court.
He did not know of another case of the
kind having reached the Court in banco.
There had been one arising out of the
publication by Mr. Thrum of evidence
given ex parte, but no penalty was in
ficted. The other case was against Mr..
Lyons, at the time manager of the AID
vERrIsER, who knew very little about
the matter personally. In that case the
Chief Justice inflicted a penalty of $50.
The object of the present proceedings
was simply to obtain judicial rule upon
the point and to ascertain whether the
of the country would be per-
mitted to publish comments and parti-
san statements upon cases which were
sub judice. He thought it was univers-
ally held that any publication rejecting,
or which had tendency to reflect, or
which was calculated to reflect upon a
party to a case pending, was contempt of
Court. Counsel compared at considera-
BILE length cases which he held to be |
parallel ones in the Courts of the United |
States, and submitted that their Honors
would have to consider whether the |
probable tendency of the article was to
prejudice the minds of the public The
article was taken exception to because it
contained partisan statements and set
forth one side only of the controversy,
and that before the Court had given its
decision. Counsel admitted that Mr..
Atkinson had made him the offer re-
ferred to, but he did not accept that offer
because he objected to the primary trial
OF such cases taking place in the press,
not that they had any vindictive feel
ing. They preferred to trust the Courts
and juries of the Kingdom rather than
the more extensive forum of public opin-
ion appealed to through the medium of
a partisan press.
The Chief JuStice asked Sc o,,1